When Will Trump Resign?

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
I don’t take anything seriously when someone is preaching morals to me. I recognize what human beings are and don’t live in a fantasyland of god’s and higher ideals.

Now you're just projecting. You are in denial of your own sense of morality, so everyone else must be nothing more than animals. Glad you see things so clearly.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
Who do you think makes a better fighter? Someone who believes that what they are doing is necessary for the survival of their nation and loved ones? Or someone who feels that what they are being forced to do is wrong? Whatever you believe about morality, you cannot deny that most people have a certain set of rules they live by and believe in. There is an effect on a person's psychological state when they are forced to violate those rules. Most can do it with minor damage if they believe a greater good is being served. Military discipline depends on this notion. The alternative is to only enlist psychopaths, and those are notoriously difficult to command, and make up a far too small of a segment of a population.
I’m glad you recognize morals are delusional and can be tossed out with a rationalization of “the greater good”. The greater good is defending america’s interest abroad. That’s what they signed up for, not some high mighty ideals. The bottom line, keep the global economy flowing in your people’s favor and kill those who have a problem with it.

If we were fighting great moral wars we’d be invading China Russia and North Korea.
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
I’m glad you recognize morals are delusional and can be tossed out with a rationalization of “the greater good”. The greater good is defending america’s interest abroad. That’s what they signed up for, not some high mighty ideals. The bottom line, keep the global economy flowing in your people’s favor and kill those who have a problem with it.

If we were fighting great moral wars we’d be invading China Russia and North Korea.

No, "America's interests" has been the rationalization for immoral acts, and that is evidenced by the trauma being suffered by servicemen and women. And, you could argue that both China and North Korea pose existential threats to the US, but war, actual combat, morally speaking, ought to be a last resort, and only entered into upon initiation of aggression by the other nation. Only then is all ambiguity erased. It's the difference between murder and self defense.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
No, "America's interests" has been the rationalization for immoral acts, and that is evidenced by the trauma being suffered by servicemen and women. And, you could argue that both China and North Korea pose existential threats to the US, but war, actual combat, morally speaking, ought to be a last resort, and only entered into upon initiation of aggression by the other nation. Only then is all ambiguity erased. It's the difference between murder and self defense.
There were servicemen suffering ptsd from fighting the Japs and the Nazis. Was WW2 also immoral for us to be involved in?
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
If your gauge of morality is based on wether people in war suffer mental damage then there will never be a war that’s moral.

You can certainly make that argument. But the closest you will ever come to a moral war is one that is fought in self-defense. If all you care about is the bottom line, and not the people who put their lives on the line to protect that bottom line, you should still believe that we shouldn't intervene in every conflict around the world.

Go put yourself in a foxhole in some third-world country with mortar rounds going off all around and then tell me how much you care about the price of a gallon of gas. The fact that people get messed up even in unambiguous moral situations just goes to show that we aren't immoral animals, and that putting people in kill or be killed situations is not something that should just be done for the political gains of a few.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
You can certainly make that argument. But the closest you will ever come to a moral war is one that is fought in self-defense. If all you care about is the bottom line, and not the people who put their lives on the line to protect that bottom line, you should still believe that we shouldn't intervene in every conflict around the world.

Go put yourself in a foxhole in some third-world country with mortar rounds going off all around and then tell me how much you care about the price of a gallon of gas. The fact that people get messed up even in unambiguous moral situations just goes to show that we aren't immoral animals, and that putting people in kill or be killed situations is not something that should just be done for the political gains of a few.
I come from a military family. My father was a marine who dropped out of high school to go kill people when Reagan got elected. My grandfather was an army pilot in WW2 his brother died in that war.

I don’t need to sign up to read about the federal government’s “morality”.

So we should just sit around and allow ISIS to rebuild. Let’s wait for 9/11 2.0 to go to war or we are just being bullies. Let’s just avoid China and Russia all together and let them control the middle eastern oil flow.
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
I don’t believe in fighting wars for morals. I believe in fighting wars for the bottom line. TTKU.

I'm not saying wars should be fought for morals. Ttku.

The act of going to war needs to have a moral justification, the morals are not the justification. That is putting the cart before the horse. We don't invade China because they are murdering millions of their own citizens and harvesting their organs. That seems like it should be justification enough though. But as separate sovereign nations what the CCP does to It's own people is not enough of a reason to get involved. They must initiate aggression towards us. That is the American sense of morality, which is why it took us so long to involve ourselves in either world war.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
I'm not saying wars should be fought for morals. Ttku.

The act of going to war needs to have a moral justification, the morals are not the justification. That is putting the cart before the horse. We don't invade China because they are murdering millions of their own citizens and harvesting their organs. That seems like it should be justification enough though. But as separate sovereign nations what the CCP does to It's own people is not enough of a reason to get involved. They must initiate aggression towards us. That is the American sense of morality, which is why it took us so long to involve ourselves in either world war.
We involved ourselves in WW1 to protect the bottom line. There’s an argument to be made that dead men don’t repay debts so we involved ourselves in the western front of WW2.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
Under your views of American history why we throw around our economic and military clout, the whole American imperialism is pretty hard to rationalize huh?

The greater ideal is american exceptionalism, the more you learn the less exceptional we become. Kind of like a school child thinking we kicked Britain’s ass in the revolutionary war.
 

zubenelgenubi

I'm a star
Under your views of American history why we throw around our economic and military clout, the whole American imperialism is pretty hard to rationalize huh?

The greater ideal is american exceptionalism, the more you learn the less exceptional we become. Kind of like a school child thinking we kicked Britain’s ass in the revolutionary war.

I don't have a problem throwing around economic clout. And I don't rationalize American Imperialism, that's kinda the point. But I do have a problem with people who are willing to sacrifice the lives of others haphazardly, for no better reason than to shave a few cents off their consumer goods.

The reasons politicians want to go to war are not the same reasons that the people who join the military are willing to risk their lives. That is where the disconnect is, and that is what I object to. You think it is perfectly acceptable to put other people's lives on the line to maintain your standard of living. You pretend to be ok with that, so who am I to free you from your denial?

The powers that be leading up to both world wars had their reasons for wanting to go to war. They at least had the understanding that they needed a reason for the American people to go along with it. In the case of the first world war, it was a false flag, but it was all that was needed to get the people on board. In the case of Pearl Harbor, there was no justifiable reason to let the troops be blindsided. Even if we were prepared for the attack, and beat the crap out of the Japanese with few casualties on our side it would have been enough to gain popular support. And I don't know what grade school you went to that gave you that idea about the revolutionary war...

I don't know, it seems a little like you are making incorrect assumptions about my views, and I don't know what they are to be able to effectively correct them.

I'm done with this tangent. Back on topic, Trump won't be resigning, even if he is successfully impeached.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
I don't have a problem throwing around economic clout. And I don't rationalize American Imperialism, that's kinda the point. But I do have a problem with people who are willing to sacrifice the lives of others haphazardly, for no better reason than to shave a few cents off their consumer goods.

The reasons politicians want to go to war are not the same reasons that the people who join the military are willing to risk their lives. That is where the disconnect is, and that is what I object to. You think it is perfectly acceptable to put other people's lives on the line to maintain your standard of living. You pretend to be ok with that, so who am I to free you from your denial?

The powers that be leading up to both world wars had their reasons for wanting to go to war. They at least had the understanding that they needed a reason for the American people to go along with it. In the case of the first world war, it was a false flag, but it was all that was needed to get the people on board. In the case of Pearl Harbor, there was no justifiable reason to let the troops be blindsided. Even if we were prepared for the attack, and beat the crap out of the Japanese with few casualties on our side it would have been enough to gain popular support. And I don't know what grade school you went to that gave you that idea about the revolutionary war...

I don't know, it seems a little like you are making incorrect assumptions about my views, and I don't know what they are to be able to effectively correct them.

I'm done with this tangent. Back on topic, Trump won't be resigning, even if he is successfully impeached.
You assume people who join the military are altruistic. That it is only selfless reasons to join. That is also a delusion. I can’t help if they are delusional about what they are signing up for. I also don’t know how your views fit reality, mine fit it just fine.

It wasn’t a false flag, Germany was effecting our bottom line in the global arena blowing up merchant ships in the Atlantic. They had to go.
 

El Correcto

god is dead
Also I’ve heard Tucker Carlson’s spill before, also Rand Paul’s. I understand your stance just fine and it’s a very popular one with the American people, very electable to go around saying you don’t like war.
 
Top